The Jacksonville Landing: What Should It Be?

[CCMjax]

Honestly, I'm more of a fan of the original 2005 renovation plan... the one that was on display for so many years.  Cut out the center, add in some midrise residential towers on each side (fronting Water Street) and add is some more retail along the front.  Give the whole place a good spruce and maybe upgrade some finishes.  I love the look and feel of The Landing and would rather see it preserved and upgraded versus totally rebuilt.

I remember seeing that somewhere.  I like it except get rid of the buildings right on the river and the buildings on the far left and right sides and have open public spaces.  No need to cram everything on to this site.  Slieman can get his residential with the outer ring buildings.  A large open green space could also be on the east side of the Main Street bridge.  I don't think they should skimp on open/green space at all.  It works wonders in some other cities.

[vicupstate]

When the 2005 proposal was made, the whole environment citywide and Downtown were different. The economy was booming, and residential was starting to come back as Parks @ the Cathedral, 11 E and Carling were are practically new. The plans for the Strand, Peninsula, San Marco Place were underway or at least announced, I believe. The BJP projects were just built or about to be as well.  There were a whole slew of proposals that never made it out of the ground, but at the time seemed realistic.  There was energy, momentum and visible progress. The Super Bowl was still a fresh memory.

At that time, the investment in the Landing made sense. Now, 10 years later, that momentum and energy was essentially lost and is only now starting to be rekindled. I think financing would be much more difficult now. 

Implementing the original 2005 proposal has a lot of appeal, but you have to ask yourself, does the demand for the hotels, condos and additional retail exist, for the 'supply' represented in the 2005 proposal?   
     

[CCMjax]

When the 2005 proposal was made, the whole environment citywide and Downtown were different. The economy was booming, and residential was starting to come back as Parks @ the Cathedral, 11 E and Carling were are practically new. The plans for the Strand, Peninsula, San Marco Place were underway or at least announced, I believe. The BJP projects were just built or about to be as well.  There were a whole slew of proposals that never made it out of the ground, but at the time seemed realistic.  There was energy, momentum and visible progress. The Super Bowl was still a fresh memory.

At that time, the investment in the Landing made sense. Now, 10 years later, that momentum and energy was essentially lost and is only now starting to be rekindled. I think financing would be much more difficult now. 

Implementing the original 2005 proposal has a lot of appeal, but you have to ask yourself, does the demand for the hotels, condos and additional retail exist, for the 'supply' represented in the 2005 proposal?   
   

I agree, the demand is not there now.  Like I said in earlier posts, my opinions on the Landing are based on what I think they should do after other things are addressed like the Trio and Barnett.  It certainly needs to be upgraded, how and when is the question.  When is probably not now.  If they can upgrade the Landing and address the Trio and Barnett at the same time, more power to them and that would be great.  But from what I understand that is not likely.  If both can't be accomplished without public help but one can then Trio first!

[thelakelander]

^Or find ways to spend less on both (from a public perspective) to get them both of them underway.

[UNFurbanist]

^Totally agree that the Trio and Barnett are still the most important projects downtown by far.

[JECJAX]

I think it's a great idea to use what we have and eliminate the buildings on each side for open green spaces.  We have so many opportunities for riverfront living other than trying to pack more living spaces into the Landing area.  It should be a public use venue.  Wouldn't a good spruce up and upgrading be a much less expense than starting all over ? 

[tufsu1]

^ the biggest problem with the current building is the minimal width of the riverwalk by Fionn MacCool's.  This could be addressed by widening the riverwalk out about 10 feet in this area.  yes it would take some bulkhead work, but it would likely be less expensive than tearing the whole building down and rebuilding it.

[Tacachale]

I hope that whenever they come up with the final proposals that (1) any plan involving tearing down the entire landing is knock-your-socks off amazing to justify the huge expense, and (2) that there's some kind of plan B involving changes to the existing structure. It shouldn't require a total tear-down to improve the space.

[hiddentrack]

^ the biggest problem with the current building is the minimal width of the riverwalk by Fionn MacCool's.  This could be addressed by widening the riverwalk out about 10 feet in this area.  yes it would take some bulkhead work, but it would likely be less expensive than tearing the whole building down and rebuilding it.

The last time I walked down that section of the riverwalk, I wondered whether there was some creative way to open up the ground-floor space of that building into something open-air (at least partially, in the area closest to the river), then move any affected tenants somewhere else inside the Landing. It's been a while since I've scoped out all the empty spaces inside, but I'm sure there's somewhere to relocate them.

I hope that whenever they come up with the final proposals that (1) any plan involving tearing down the entire landing is knock-your-socks off amazing to justify the huge expense, and (2) that there's some kind of plan B involving changes to the existing structure. It shouldn't require a total tear-down to improve the space.

I'm not entirely opposed to something new, but I hope we get a plan B. There are enough places downtown where we can build something new that this would have to be something very special. Otherwise, I don't see the point in tearing down something that can still function if it gets a little long-overdue attention.

[thelakelander]

Downtown Investment Authority's top executive makes case for rebuilding Jacksonville Landing

The Downtown Investment Authority's top executive made the case Wednesday for rebuilding on the site of the Jacksonville Landing, saying a master plan for the property would result in a place "that feels good, that is safe, and that you will want to come back to again and again."
But the DIA board didn't take any votes on the master plan that envisions a mix of a park, a riverfront promenade, and private buildings for apartments, restaurants and shops on about 7 acres of prime, city-owned property.

Aundra Wallace, CEO of the investment authority, gave board members a three-page memo outlining the ideas behind the design. He said the authority is still seeking feedback from the public and is open to making more changes.

"We're not pulling the trigger on this," board Chairman Jim Bailey said. "There's still a lot of work to be done."

The master plan would just determine what parts of the property are for privately-owned buildings and what parts are for parks and open space. There are no figures for what the city's share of the redevelopment cost would be. Last year, the estimated city expense for a similar plan would have been at least $11.8 million.

The city owns the land and leases it to the Sleiman family, which owns the two-story riverfront mall. The proposal before DIA calls for tearing down the mall and building anew.

"It seems to me, at first blush, that it really has a wow factor to it," DIA board member Jack Meeks said after hearing a presentation on where the design stands.

"It's a very intriguing design," board member Oliver Barakat said.

Wallace said 45 percent of the property would be set aside for buildings, and 40 percent would be for a park and open space. The remaining 15 percent would be for sidewalks and roads, including an extension of Laura Street partway into the property.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-07-29/story/downtown-investment-authoritys-top-executive-makes-case-rebuilding

[whyisjohngalt]

Can we fine Sleiman for not maintaining the landing?  It seems beneficial for him to let it deteriorate if we're going to pay for it.  He should not be entitled to ownership if Landing 2.0 is going to happen.  It's another public risk + private reward equation.

What would he choose if the options were remodel or eminent domain?

Upsetting to see DIA is not interested in value of new developer.

[finehoe]

"It seems to me, at first blush, that it really has a wow factor to it," DIA board member Jack Meeks said after hearing a presentation on where the design stands.

"It's a very intriguing design," board member Oliver Barakat said.

Which intriguing wow factor design are they referring to?

[thelakelander]

IMO, at this point, it's pretty clear what the scale and feel of the final product will be. There's only so many ways you can squeeze the desired product mix on the site and in a design that is actually feasible for the market.  I seriously doubt the replacement structures will be significantly different from the thousands of similar mixed-use products across the country. However, depending on how much cash COJ throws in, the public space could be impressive compared to what currently exists today. So my interest is growing in finding out how much cash is needed from the public sector to pull it off, identifying a realistic funding pot and the desired timeline for redevelopment.

[Tacachale]

IMO, at this point, it's pretty clear what the scale and feel of the final product will be. There's only so many ways you can squeeze the desired product mix on the site and in a design that is actually feasible for the market.  I seriously doubt the replacement structures will be significantly different from the thousands of similar mixed-use products across the country. However, depending on how much cash COJ throws in, the public space could be impressive compared to what currently exists today. So my interest is growing in finding out how much cash is needed from the public sector to pull it off, identifying a realistic funding pot and the desired timeline for redevelopment.

If he wants anything close to $11 million from the city like he did before, it better be pretty impressive. As in, not like the last go round.

[thelakelander]

If it's something in that range, it would be good to have a "Plan B" that involves a some extra buckets of orange paint, a pressure washer, sod, landscaping, extra concrete pavers, etc......Reality is, you can't squeeze blood (cash that doesn't exist) out of a turnip (our budget).